Governance of algorithms: options and limitations (original) (raw)

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of governance choice in the area of algorithmic selection. Algorithms on the Internet shape our daily lives and realities. They select information, automatically assign relevance to them and keep people from drowning in an information flood. The benefits of algorithms are accompanied by risks and governance challenges. Design/methodology/approach – Based on empirical case analyses and a review of the literature, the paper chooses a risk-based governance approach. It identifies and categorizes applications of algorithmic selection and attendant risks. Then, it explores the range of institutional governance options and discusses applied and proposed governance measures for algorithmic selection and the limitations of governance options. Findings – Analyses reveal that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions for the governance of algorithms. Attention has to shift to multi-dimensional solutions and combinat...

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (98)

  1. Abbot, C. (2012), "Bridging the gap -non-state actors and the challenges of regulating new technology", Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 329-358.
  2. Águila-Obra, A.R., Pandillo-Meléndez, A. and Serarols-Tarrés, C. (2007), "Value creation and new intermediaries on internet. An exploratory analysis of the online news industry and the web content aggregators", International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 187-199.
  3. Argenton, C. and Prüfer, J. (2012), "Search engine competition with network externalities", Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 73-105.
  4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2007), "Google bombing from a time perspective", Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 910-938.
  5. Bartle, I. and Vass, P. (2005), Self-Regulation and the Regulatory State: A Survey of Policy and Practice, University of Bath School of Management.
  6. BGBl (2013), "Part 1 No. 23, p. 1161", available at: www.bgbl.de/banzxaver/bgbl/start.xav?startbkϭ Bundesanzeiger_BGBl&jumpToϭbgbl113s1161.pdf (accessed 12 August 2014).
  7. Black, J. (2010), "Risk-based regulation: choices, practices and lessons learnt", in OECD (Ed.), Risk and Regulatory Policy: Improving the Governance of Risk, OECD Publishing, Paris, pp. 185-224.
  8. Bozdag, E. (2013), "Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization", Ethics and Information Technology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 209-227. PAGE 44 info VOL. 17 NO. 6 2015
  9. Downloaded by UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich At 05:25 02 September 2015 (PT) Bracha, O. and Pasquale, F. (2008), "Federal search commission? Access, fairness and accountability in the law of search", Cornell Law Review, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1149-1210.
  10. Brown, I. and Marsden, C. (2013), Regulating Code. Good Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London.
  11. Bucher, T. (2012), "Want to be on top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook", New Media & Society, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 1164-1180.
  12. Büthe, T. and Mattli, W. (2011), The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.
  13. Carr, N. (2010), The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, W.W. Norton, New York, NY.
  14. Cave, J., Marsden, C. and Simmons, S. (2008), Options for and Effectiveness of Internet Self-and Co-Regulation, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, available at: www.rand.org/pubs/technical\_ reports/TR566 (accessed 3 July 2015).
  15. Cavoukia, A. (2009), "Privacy by design", Lecture at the Trust Economics Workshop, London, 23 June, available at: www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/2009-06-23-TrustEconomics.pdf (accessed 12 August 2014).
  16. Cavoukia, A. (2012), "Privacy by design: origins, meaning, and prospects for ensuring privacy and trust in the information era", available at: www.privacybydesign.ca/content/uploads/2010/03/ PrivacybyDesignBook.pdf (accessed 12 August 2014).
  17. Chiou, L. and Tucker, C. (2013), "Digitization and aggregation", available at: http://bellarmine.lmu. edu/media/lmubellarminesite/bcladepartments/economics/economicsdocuments/Digitization% 20and%20Aggregation.pdf (accessed 12 August 2014).
  18. Clark, B. (2010), "Google image search does not infringe copyright, says Bundesgerichtshof", Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol. 5 No. 8, pp. 553-555.
  19. Clark, B. (2012), "Google image still does not infringe copyright, reaffirms Bundesgerichtshof", Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol. 7 No. 11, pp. 788-789.
  20. Collin, P. and Colin, N. (2013), "Mission d'expertise sur la fiscalité de l'économie numérique", available at: www.redressement-productif.gouv.fr/files/rapport-fiscalite-du-numerique\_2013.pdf (accessed 16 August 2014).
  21. Cushing Weigle, S. (2013), "English language learners and automated scoring of essays: critical considerations", Assessing Writing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 85-99.
  22. Diakopoulos, N. (2015), "Algorithmic accountability. Journalistic investigation of computational power structures", Digital Journalism, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 398-415.
  23. Döpfner, M. (2014), "Warum wir Google fürchten: Offener brief an Eric Schmidt", Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 16 April, available at: www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/mathias-doepfner- warum-wir-google-fuerchten-12897463.html (accessed 15 February 2015).
  24. ECJ -European Court of Justice (2014), "ECJ judgement C-131/12 Google Spain vs. AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez", available at: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/ cp140070en.pdf (accessed 12 August 2014).
  25. Elgesem, D. (2008), "Search engines and the public use of reason", Ethics and Information Technology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 233-242.
  26. Epstein, R. and Robertson, R.E. (2013), "Democracy at risk: manipulating search rankings can shift voters' preferences substantially without their awareness", available at: http://aibrt.org/downloads/ EPSTEIN_and_Robertson_2013-Democracy_at_Risk-APS-summary-5-13.pdf (accessed 3 July 2015).
  27. FTC -Federal Trade Commission (2014), "Data brokers. A call for transparency and accountability", available at: www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/data-brokers-call-transparency- accountability-report-federal-trade-commission-may-2014/140527databrokerreport.pdf (accessed 12 August 2014).
  28. Gandy, O.H. (2010), "Engaging rational discrimination: exploring reasons for placing regulatory constraints on decision support systems", Ethics and Information Technology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
  29. Gangadharan, S.P. (Ed.) (2014), Data and Discrimination: Collected Essays, Open Technology Institute, available at: www.newamerica.org/downloads/OTI-Data-an-Discrimination-FINAL-small.pdf (accessed 3 July 2015).
  30. Gillespie, T. (2014), "The relevance of algorithms", in Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. and Foot, K. (Eds), Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 167-194.
  31. Granka, L.A. (2010), "The politics of search: a decade retrospective", The Information Society, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 364-374.
  32. Grasser, U. and Schulz, W. (2015), "Governance of online intermediaries observations from a series of national case studies", available at: http://ssrn.com/abstractϭ2566364 (accessed 5 May 2015).
  33. Gunningham, N. and Rees, J. (1997), "Industry self-regulation: an institutional perspective", Law & Policy, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 363-414.
  34. Gupta, A.K. and Lad, L.J. (1983), "Industry self-regulation: an economic, organizational, and political analysis", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 416-425.
  35. Hans-Bredow-Institut and Institute of European Media Law (2006), Study on Co-Regulation Measures in the Media Sector, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/library/studies/coregul/final\_rep\_ en.pdf (accessed 3 July 2015).
  36. Hinz, O. and Eckert, J. (2010), "The impact of search and recommendation systems on sales in electronic commerce", Business & Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 67-77.
  37. Hustinx, P. (2010), "Privacy by design: delivering the promises", Identity in the Information Society, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 253-255.
  38. Introna, L.D. and Nissenbaum, H. (2000), "Shaping the web: why the politics of search engines matters", The Information Society, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 169-185.
  39. Jansen, B.J. (2007), "Click fraud", Computer, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 85-86.
  40. Jürgens, P., Jungherr, A. and Schoen, H. (2011), "Small worlds with a difference: new gatekeepers and the filtering of political information on twitter", Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?idϭ2527034 (accessed 12 August 2014).
  41. Katzenbach, C. (2011), "Technologies as institutions: rethinking the role of technology in media governance constellations", in Puppis, M. and Just, N. (Eds), Trends in Communication Policy Research, Intellect, Bristol, pp. 117-138.
  42. König, R. and Rasch, M. (2014), Society of the Query Reader: Reflections on Web Search, Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, available at: http://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/society-of-the- query-reader-reflections-on-web-search/ (accessed 20 August 2014).
  43. Kraemer, F., van Overveld, K. and Peterson, M. (2011), "Is there an ethics of algorithms?", Ethics and Information Technology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 251-260.
  44. Krishnan, S., Patel, J., Franklin, M.J. and Goldberg, K. (2014), "Social influence bias in recommender systems: a methodology for learning, analyzing, and mitigating bias in ratings", available at: http:// goldberg.berkeley.edu/pubs/sanjay-recsys-v10.pdf (accessed 3 July 2015).
  45. Langford, A. (2013), "gMonopoly: does search bias warrant antitrust or regulatory intervention?", Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 1559-1592.
  46. Langheinrich, M. (2001), "Privacy by design -principles of privacy-aware ubiquitous systems", in Abowd, G.D., Brumitt, B. and Shafer, S.A. (Eds), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp 2001), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), Atlanta, Georgia, Vol. 2201, pp. 273-291.
  47. Lanier, J. (2013), Who Owns the Future?, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
  48. Lao, M. (2013), "'Neutral' search as a basis for antitrust action?", Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 1-12.
  49. Latzer, M., Hollnbuchner, K., Just, N. and Saurwein, F. (2015), "The economics of algorithmic selection on the Internet", in Bauer, J. and Latzer, M. (Eds), Handbook on the Economics of the Internet, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton.
  50. Latzer, M. (2014), "Algorithmische Selektion im Internet: Ökonomie und Politik automatisierter Relevanzzuweisung in der Informationsgesellschaft", Forschungsbericht, Universität Zürich, IPMZ, Abteilung für Medienwandel & Innovation. PAGE 46 info VOL. 17 NO. 6 2015
  51. Downloaded by UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich At 05:25 02 September 2015 (PT) Latzer, M., Just, N., Saurwein, F. and Slominski, P. (2002), Selbst-und Ko-Regulierung im Mediamatiksektor: Alternative Regulierungsformen zwischen Markt und Staat, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden.
  52. Latzer, M., Just, N., Saurwein, F. and Slominski, P. (2003), "Regulation remixed: institutional change through self and co-regulation in the mediamatics sector", Communications & Strategies, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 127-157.
  53. Latzer, M., Price, M.E., Saurwein, F., Verhulst, S.G., Hollnbuchner, K. and Ranca, L. (2007), "Comparative analysis of international co-and self-regulation in communications markets", Research report commissioned by Ofcom, ITA, Vienna.
  54. Lessig, L. (1999), Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Basic Books, New York, NY.
  55. Lewandowski, D. (2014), "Why we need an independent index of the web", in König, R. and Rasch, M. (Eds), Society of the Query Reader: Reflections on Web Search, Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, pp. 50-58.
  56. Lin, P. and Selinger, E. (2014), "Inside google's mysterious ethics board", Forbes, available at: www.forbes.com/sites/privacynotice/2014/02/03/inside-googles-mysterious-ethics-board/ (accessed 15 September 2014).
  57. London Economics (2010), "Study on the economic benefits of privacy enhancing technologies (PETs)", Final Report to the European Commission DG Justice, Freedom and Security, available at: http://ec.europa. eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/studies/final_report_pets_16_07_10_en.pdf (accessed 12 August 2014).
  58. Lyon, D. (2003), "Surveillance as social sorting: computer codes and mobile bodies", in Lyon, D. (Ed.), Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk, and Social Discrimination, Routledge, London, New York, NY, pp. 13-30.
  59. Machill, M. and Beiler, M. (2007), Die Macht der Suchmaschinen -The Power of Search Engines, Herbert von Halem Verlag, Cologne.
  60. Mager, A. (2012), "Algorithmic ideology: how capitalist society shapes search engines", Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 769-787.
  61. Manovich, L. (2013), Software Takes Command, Bloomsbury, New York, NY.
  62. Mayer-Schönberger, V. and Cukier, K. (2013), Big Data: Die Revolution, die unser Leben verändern wird, Redline Verlag, Munich.
  63. Moffat, V.R. (2009), "Regulating search", Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 475-513.
  64. Munson, S.A. and Resnick, P. (2010), "Presenting diverse political opinions: how and how much", Proceedings of ACM CHI 2010 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 1457-1466.
  65. Musiani, F. (2013), "Governance by algorithms", Internet Policy Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, available at: http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/governance-algorithms (accessed 15 February 2015).
  66. Napoli, P.M. (2013), "The algorithm as institution: toward a theoretical framework for automated media production and consumption", paper presented at the Media in Transition Conference, MIT Cambridge.
  67. OECD (2013), "Exploring data-driven innovation as a new source of growth. Mapping the policy issues raised by 'big data'", available at: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/exploring-data- driven-innovation-as-a-new-source-of-growth_5k47zw3fcp43-en (accessed 23 July 2014).
  68. Ohm, P. (2010), "Broken promises of privacy: responding to the surprising failure of anonymization", UCLA Law Review, Vol. 57, pp. 1701-1777.
  69. Pariser, E. (2011), The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You, Penguin Books, London.
  70. Pasquale, F. (2015), The Black Box Society. The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information, Harvard University Press.
  71. Patterson, M.R. (2013), "Google and search-engine market power", Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Occasional Paper Series, available at: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/antitrust/articles/ Patterson.pdf (accessed 15 February 2015).
  72. Quinn, D.J. (2014), "Associated Press v. Meltwater: are courts being fair to news aggregators?", Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1189-1219.
  73. Resnick, P., Kelly Garrett, R., Kriplean, T., Munson, S.A. and Stroud, N.J. (2013), "Bursting your (filter) bubble: strategies for promoting diverse exposure", Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work Companion, San Antonio, Texas, pp. 95-100.
  74. Rieder, B. (2005), "Networked control: search engines and the symmetry of confidence", International Review of Information Ethics, Vol. 3, pp. 26-32.
  75. Rietjens, B. (2006), "Trust and reputation on eBay: towards a legal framework for feedback intermediaries", Information & Communications Technology Law, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 55-78.
  76. Saurwein, F. (2011), "Regulatory choice for alternative modes of regulation: how context matters", Law & Policy, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 334-366.
  77. Schaar, P. (2010), "Privacy by design", Identity in the Information Society, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 267-274.
  78. Schedl, M., Hauger, D. and Schnitzer, D. (2012), "A model for serendipitous music retrieval", Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Context-awareness in Retrieval and Recommendation, Lisbon, pp. 10-13.
  79. Schormann, T. (2012), "Online-Portale: Großer Teil der Hotelbewertungen ist manipuliert", Spiegel Online, available at: www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/online-portale-grosser-teil-der-hotelbewertungen- ist-manipuliert-a-820383.html (accessed 12 August 2014).
  80. Schulz, W., Held, T. and Laudien, A. (2005), "Search engines as gatekeepers of public communication: analysis of the german framework applicable to internet search engines including media law and anti-trust law", German Law Journal, Vol. 6 No. 10, pp. 1418-1433.
  81. Senecal, S. and Nantel, J. (2004), "The influence of online product recommendation on consumers' online choice", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 159-169.
  82. Sinclair, D. (1997), "Self-regulation versus command and control? Beyond false dichotomies", Law & Policy, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 529-559.
  83. Somaiya, R. (2014), "How facebook is changing the way its users consume journalism", New York Times, 26 October, available at: www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/business/media/how-facebook-is- changing-the-way-its-users-consume-journalism.html (accessed 15 February 2015).
  84. Sparrow, B., Liu, J. and Wegner, D.M. (2011), "Google effects on memory: cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips", Science, Vol. 333 No. 6043, pp. 776-778.
  85. Steiner, C. (2012), Automate This: How Algorithms Came to Rule Our World, Penguin Books, New York, NY. Stühmeier, T. (2011), "Das Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger: Eine ordnungspolitische Analyse", Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven, Vol. 12, pp. 1-20.
  86. Sunstein, C. (2001), Republic.com, PUP, Princeton, NJ.
  87. Sunstein, C. (2009), Republic.com 2.0, PUP, Princeton, NJ.
  88. Toch, E., Wang, Y. and Crainor, L.F. (2012), "Personalization and privacy: a survey of privacy risks and remedies in personalization-based systems", User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, Vol. 22 Nos 1/2, pp. 203-220.
  89. Van Dalen, A. (2012), "The algorithms behind the headlines", Journalism Practice, Vol. 6 Nos 5/6, pp. 648-658.
  90. Wallace, J. and Dörr, K. (2015), "Beyond traditional gatekeeping. How algorithms and users restructure the online gatekeeping process", Conference Paper, Digital Disruption to Journalism and Mass Communication Theory, Brussels, 2-3 October 2014.
  91. WEF -World Economic Forum (2011), "Personal data: the 'new oil' of the 21st century", available at: www.weforum.org/sessions/summary/personal-data-new-oil-21st-century (accessed 12 August 2014).
  92. Wittel, G.L. and Wu, S.F. (2004), "On attacking statistical spam filters", Proceedings of the First Conference on Email and Anti-Spam (CEAS), available at: http://pdf.aminer.org/000/085/123/on\_ attacking_statistical_spam_filters.pdf (accessed 12 August 2014).
  93. Zhang, J. and Dimitroff, A. (2005), "The impact of webpage content characteristics on webpage visibility in search engine results (Part I)", Information Processing and Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 665-690. PAGE 48 info VOL. 17 NO. 6 2015
  94. Downloaded by UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich At 05:25 02 September 2015 (PT) Zimmer, M. (2008), "The externalities of search 2.0: the emerging privacy threats when the drive for the perfect search engine meets web 2.0", First Monday, Vol. 13 No. 3, available at: www.firstmonday. dk/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2136/1944 (accessed 12 August 2014).
  95. Zittrain, J. and Palfrey, J. (2008), "Internet filtering: the politics and mechanisms of control", in Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R. and Zittrain, J. (Eds), Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 29-56.
  96. Zuboff, S. (2014), "Dark google", Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 30 April, available at: www.faz.net/ aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/the-digital-debate/shoshanna-zuboff-dark-google-12916679.html (accessed 12 August 2014). Further reading Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, Official Journal L 281, 23.11.1995, pp. 31-50.
  97. Latzer, M. (2007), "Regulatory choice in communications governance", Communications -The European Journal of Communication Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 399-405. About the authors Florian Saurwein is a Postdoctoral Researcher and Project Assistant at the Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ -Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research, University of Zurich, Switzerland. Natascha Just is a Senior Research and Teaching Associate at the Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ -Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
  98. Michael Latzer is a Professor of Communications at the Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research (IPMZ), University of Zurich, Switzerland, where he chairs the Media Change & Innovation Division. Michael Latzer is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: m.latzer@ipmz.uzh.ch For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com